Harry Valentine says

There are many theories behind the global warming trend, including cyclical solar activity . . . . 2012 and 2013 are the cyclical peak years. Solar activity can explain the hotter summer weather and drought across the USA during 2012, as well as the slightly warmer ocean water along the US and Canadian East Coast.

A related theory tells of the occasional tendency of the earth's crust to "slip" on the liquid inner core . . . with resulting tsunami's, earthquakes and changes in weather patterns. It is quite possible for the North Pole to have shifted slightly closer toward Russia . . . that could cause slightly warmer summer weather across North America. I have friends who live in the southern hemisphere and they're having a slightly cooler winter than usual.

Len Gould says

This article is nonsense.

Michael Keller says

What we should be doing is concentrating on the efficient use and production of energy. Such a simple approach saves us money and that leads directly to a better economy (and more jobs), with the happy byproduct of being vastly more effective at reducing greenhouse gases than renewable energy (regardless of whether such gases really are a problem).

Further, in my opinion, the actual driver behind the "global warming" industry (which includes most of academia as well as large number of opportunistic conniving companies) is money; as increasing the wealth of a few at the expense of many while using fear and intimidation to bludgeoning any who object.

Len Gould says

Michael Keller says

When you look at when energy is used (and generated), clear patterns emerge with huge demands tied to heating and cooling. That is where solutions need to be concentrated. Unfortunately, renewable energy may or may not be available during these high demand periods. Further, the cost of renewable energy is generally significantly greater than simple efficiency driven approaches.

The ability to always make meaningful reductions in the use of energy during periods of high demand is why efficiency based approaches are so much more effective than renewable energy approaches. The byproduct of reducing energy usage is reduced emission, of all types. This capability will vastly exceed that of renewable energy until such time as efficiency improvements have been exhausted. We are nowhere near that point.

Malcolm Rawlingson says

Bob Amorosi says

BTW some of the larger distribution utility companies in Ontario are now offering free real-time in-home energy display monitors(from BlueLine innovations in Newfoundland) if you sign up for a “peaksaver” utility-controlled thermostat. The utility company not only pays to install the thermostat, but they also swap out the smart meter on your house to install one equipped to communicate with the free in-home display unit they give you. Think of what that all costs them, ooops, I mean costs us taxpayers because it is all being funded by the Ontario government through the Ontario Power Authority with handouts to the utilities.

If rates do not stop skyrocketing over time, there will be major attitude changes, and not just towards electricity use but also towards our politicians who are pushing us all down this pathway.

Michael Keller says

I fail to see the point of jacking up the price of energy, particularly in response to "global warming" nonsense. Energy should be low-cost, as it is the foundation upon which our modern society is built.

Malcolm, I gather you believe the "little people" should be delighted to pay a larger chunk of their hard earned paychecks for electricity. I most emphatically believe they should pay less.

Edgar DeMeo says

Risk is the arithmetic product of probability and consequence. Even if the probability is low (and most qualified scientists think it is not low), in this case the consequence is so staggering that the risk of doing nothing is unacceptable.

Mr, Ashworth, please do not advocate for complacency. Your children and grandchildren -- and mine and many others -- could turn out to be the big losers.

Michael Hogan says

Dennis Witte says

daniel cretu says

Kevin Lawless says

Background

Mr. Ashworth is a chemical engineer and has presented over 50 technical papers on fuels and fuel related subjects. Relating to the subject of global warming, he has written two papers, "CFC Destruction of Ozone - Major Cause of Recent Global Warming" and "No Evidence to Support Carbon Dioxide Causing Global Warming". He is a member of the American Geophysical Union. He is a Past Advisor to the University of Pittsburgh International Conference on Coal Conversion. He was Session Chairman, Coal Gasification, Liquefaction and Conversion to Electricity, Fifth International Conference, University of Pittsburgh, August 1978. He gave a guest presentation, "Production of Methanol via Wood Gasification, to Companhia Energética de Sao Paulo (CESP), and the Technical Institute of Sao Paulo, Brazil, November 1978. He was Session Chairman, Industrial Wood Utilization Workshop, "Wood Gasification", Mitre Corporation/U.S. DOE, April 1979. He also gave a guest presentation to the National Coal Board on coal gasification for combined cycle power generation, Leatherhead, England, April 1979.

He holds 16 U. S. patents, several of which have been filed and allowed in other countries. ClearStack is working to commercialize two of the patents, a three-stage oxidation technique that reduces sulfur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and mercury and a dry scrubber that removes nitrogen and sulfur oxides from flue gas. In 2001, Governor Paul Patton commissioned him a Kentucky Colonel for his work on clean coal technology.

Within his avocations, he wrote a paper on the "Unit Relationship of Thought to Energy and Mass". It was published in the Rosicrucian Digest in January 1986. The paper provides scientists with a mathematical tie to God. A paper on the helical travel of light was published in Physics Essays in 1998. Proof is given that photons are simply very small particles of mass traveling in helical trajectories. The helical diameter of any radiant energy particle trajectory in free space is its wavelength divided by pi - the universal constant (dhelix = /?). The reason this works is that the circumference of the helix is identical to its wavelength. Based on this theory, all of the qualities of light can be explained in simple terms.

Patrick Longmire says

And furthermore, why is this author, who is a chemical engineer with deep ties to coal-fired electricity, allowed ANY opinion at all on a subject for which he has no obvious training? If I were to write a paper on chemical engineering (and my last class was "Physics for Poets" 30 years ago in my undergraduate studies), would the author himself give it any weight or would he dismiss it as the work of an amateur (just as we should dismiss his article)?

To claim, as this writer does, that the vast majority of climate experts is in a "vast, left-wing conspiracy" to defraud the world is simply ludicrous and not credible. Despite the efforts of (mostly right wing) deniers, the consensus of the scientific community is that climate change is a risk and, as noted by Edgar DeMeo, the potential consequences militate for action NOT complacency.

One can see echoes here of some Easter Islander claiming, as he cut the very last tree, that those people who were insisting that something should be done about deforestation were simply trying to make money off of tree preservation!

Greg Tinfow says

Long-time coal industry apparatchik cherry-picks sources and cites thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories (e.g., Climategate) to "prove" climate change is a massive fraud, despite the nearly unanimous agreement among climate scientists that we are well into a period of human-induced warming. You could knock me over with a feather!

The reality is that it's quite irrelevant what Mr. Ashworth thinks, or whether any of us agree with him or not. According to the latest estimates, if we stop CO2 emissions cold tomorrow, the planet would continue to heat for another century or two. The decisions we make now will impact people born after all of us are quite dead and gone. If our successors are spending a large part of the GNP building dikes to hold back the ocean, they will know us as the "blind and stupid" generation--or not.

There are plenty of reasons to start transitioning away from fossil fuels whether you "believe" that climate change is real or imaginary. Here are a few: atmospheric sulphates, nitrates, and particulates; flue gas desulfurization wastes; coal ash; mountaintop removal; acid mine drainage; black lung; mine cave-ins; strip mining; and the list goes on. After hundreds of years of burning fossilized plant matter, haven't we gotten any more advanced? We used to ride horses for transportation and dodge horse manure on the streets. Cars were the next step in our evolution and inevitably the now 120-year-old technology they employ will be replaced with something else. So too with our current generation of electricity generation systems. I've displaced about 90% of my home energy consumption with a combination of efficiency improvements and solar and I sleep quite peacefully.

Greg Tinfow CEO, Energy Informatics LLC

p.s. Energy Central, can't you do better than this?

Michael Hogan says

Monty Bannerman says

WES CAMPBELL says

Jared Brown says

Also, it was proven long ago that "climategate" was a non-issue. Eight major committees investigated the allegations and reports and found no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.

William Gilbert says

Michael Keller says

As usual with religious fanatics, the global warming cabal attacks anyone who questions their dogma.

If science was the actual driver, then questioning global warming would be welcome as that is how the truth is ultimately arrived at by fair minded individuals (and normally, the scientific method).

As far as Bob Ashworth credentials: very impressive.

Well done Energy Pulse and Bob Ashworth. Freedom of speech and inquiry remain alive and well in this forum.

John K. Sutherland says

Joel Brown says

1. IPCC - 2000 (2001?) man made CO2 = 2.9% of total; and "Nature absorbs 98.5% of the CO2 that is emitted by nature and man." Assuming at some point way back in history, anthropogenic CO2 was very close to 0%, and assuming the surface area of the ocean has not increased significantly during that time, nature originally had 1.4% of current CO2 emissions as slack absorption capacity. By 2001 humans had increased CO2 emissions by more than double that spare capacity. Hence the increase in atmospheric PPM. Quite a lot of that came from burning coal. Not to mention almost ALL the recent mercury pollution.

2. Evaporation does cool the "earth" in the sense of cooling the soil from which the water was evaporated. But it does net zero to the biosphere. We live in a relatively closed, approximately steady-state box. Surely you took thermo, Bobby?

3. One would suppose the temperature (and hence the average temperature) history has been adjusted for the change in metering points. If not, it should be easy to do so. The fact that Bozo Bob does not give the adjusted curve to prove his point of advocacy suggests that the answer doesn't change when that is done.

4. Figure 5 (Arid vs. Humid Climate Dewpoints) is genuinely STUPID. Rising temperature doesn't change the dewpoint, only a change in local atmospheric moisture (e.g. absolute humidity) does that. As humidity rises, all else meteorological being equal, dewpoint rises. This chart tells us exactly nothing.

Unfortunately, most readers lack the scientific and engineering capabilities to examine a bogus article like this one critically. That SHOULD be the job of the tech editors at EnergyPulse. Not only did they fail to do so, they actually sent out a mass emailing with this grossly unethical dissembler's headline. So my final comment is to them: I just added you to my spam blocker.

Joel B. Brown President, EnergyRisk, LLC 09/04/2012

Jeffrey Sharer says

I am surprised that this publication did not disclose the author's background and his benefactors. Rather than blocking your sight, I will maintain a close vigilance of this website to see whether any further sophomoric "science" articles are published by your publications.

John K. Sutherland says

Patrick Longmire says

The only factual points which can be debated by the rest of us non-climate scientists are (i) whether the "experts" in the field have reached a consensus view on the subject and, if so, what is that consensus; and (ii) whether that consensus is suspect because it is actually a global conspiracy to mislead and defraud.

I believe the FACT is that the "experts" have reached a consensus that human activity is contributing to potentially dangerous global warming, based on the best science available to us today (note that I am also open to the possibility that the consensus will one day be proven wrong--it happens in science--but, as a non-expert, I am not the one to debate the accuracy of the science based on superficial arguments such as "I remember that it used to be warmer many years ago and this year feels cooler," or "some scientists looked at 3 days in 2001 and found airplanes cool the earth"). I also do not find it credible that the community of climate scientists could come together to perpetuate a coordinated fraud based on faulty science.

If anyone on the other side of this debate can provide any information disputing these two views (and support their position with verifiable facts), I would love to hear it.

Robert Lockhart says

William Gilbert says

Malcolm Rawlingson says

As a student of both history and engineering the high pitched rhetoric is very reminiscent of those who were adamant that the Sun revolved around the Earth. Or that Christopher Columbus would fall off the edge of the earth when he sailed west. When scientists try to defame others whose only sin was to question their data then that in and of itself calls into question both their motives and their scientific credibility. As one writer notes above scientists of any stripe should welcome effective criticism of their data. But they do not. They defend with rhetoric not science. They throw verbal barbs at those who dare to question and worst of all try to silence and defame those that disagree.

Throughout the history of mankind THAT is a hallmark of religion not science. Those who engage in it do not deserve the term scientist.

For those who have argued that a) Climate is changing and b) that the perceived change is caused by human interaction with the planet (Carbon Dioxide and methane) the question I would ask is what if you ARE wrong. Trillions of dollars of wealth will have been squandered. We will have wrecked the planet with millions of square miles of wind farms and solar panels - all to have no effect.

And as I have said many many times before the only constant thing about the earths climate is that it changes. I would be much more worried if it did not.

And of course the usual rhetoric is that all scientists are in agreement - which is actually completely false. Perhaps the fraternity of "Climate" scientists do but that is not all scientists and there are many of them who have very different theories to explain things and there are very many papers that explain the phenomena we see much much more accurately.

And no one has yet explained here why the earth has been far far warmer in the past than it is today with NO man made CO2 in the atmosphere. Clarly there are many other factors at work.

And what of the consequences. A warmer climate will mean much MORE food production. I observe that it is very much easier to grow crops in the tropics than it is in Canada and Russia. If these vast lands will be able to produce much more food than they do now - how is that a bad thing.

If Greenland has no ice sheet a vast continent opens up for habitation. We may lose a few islands but we will gain vastly more usable land area on the planet. Is that bad - don't think so. Malcolm

Michael Keller says

The climate is complex, non-linear and not currently capable of supporting proper statistical and probability analysis relative to CO2 emissions and the future. That is a mathematical fact.

Ditto for the impact, which may actually be more positive than negative. We simply do not know.

Unknown x unknown = unknown.

Malcolm Rawlingson says

"Malcolm, I gather you believe the "little people" should be delighted to pay a larger chunk of their hard earned paychecks for electricity. I most emphatically believe they should pay less."

I take a bit of an exception to that since I have spent the past 40 years trying to make the product as cheap as and reliable as possible.

The point I was trying to make is the "little people" as you call them have choices to make regarding their use of electricity and their money. Most will not bother about turning off a light because it simply is not worth their while and only very high electricity prices will change that behaviour. As a result of expensive and subsidised wind and solar generation we are rapidly heading for those types of prices. The track we are on - produce less of the cheaper electricity and more of the expensive electricity and less of it overall (conservation) will all work to make electricity a commodity only affordable by the wealthy.

THEN the little people will turn off all the lights and conserve like crazy - so that they can afford $300 hockey tickets.

I guess that means I am one of the little people.

Malcolm

Michael Keller says

Consensus does not equal fact. Rather it is speculation.

Spending trillions of dollars to counter speculated and poorly understood real or imagined future effects is foolish. Worse yet, deploying a poor solution (renewable energy) to such a poorly understood and real or imagined threat is just plain stupid.

Michael Keller says

Worse yet, renewable energy has no essentially no impact on global CO2 emissions. It only serves to needlessly drive up costs and enrich the undeserving.

If somebody wants to leave a light bulb on, that is their preogative.

Michael Keller says

Gerry Runte says

Greg Tinfow says

if the 2.85 million cubic kilometers of Greenland's ice were to melt, we would lose far more than "a few islands" in the resulting 23.6 foot rise in global see level, as one person suggested. We would inundate a large number of coastal cities, along with big chunks of Florida, Silicon Valley, and California's Central Valley, among other places. As of mid-July of this year, satellite data indicated that 97% of Greenland's ice sheet was melting on the surface, a new record. There's so much of it however, it's likely to take another 2000 years to melt completely even if present trends continue. We're likely to see some nasty effects of climate change long before then.

Here's a hypothetical. If you notice that you're getting short of breath climbing stairs, having chest pains, and you have high blood pressure, do you start to modify your lifestyle or wait until you have the massive coronary?. After all, it's only a theory that lifestyle versus genetics determines your likelihood of heart disease, despite the fact that 999 out of 1000 doctors will tell you heart disease is preventable with lifestyle modifications. Whom do you bet your life on, the one that allows you to continue your bad habits or the overwhelming "no fun" majority? The prudent man would likely hedge his bets, cutting down on the red meet five times per week, the two-pack-a-day cigarette habit, and the long periods in the recliner. It's no different with our species as a whole. If it's possible to wean ourselves from the bad habits that may eventually lead to our premature demise (at least for large numbers of us), isn't it prudent to hedge our bets? Is it possible to converts coal-fired powerplants with significant remaining asset lives to gas? Yes it is. Is it possible to displace lots of fuel with solar, wind, and other more "benign" technolgies? Also yes, and much more likely with new advances in storage technologies. The trends towards urbanization, automation, and transportation in the future make it likely that we're going to be living in a world that's more electrified, not less. The solution however, is not to keep doubling down on the things that the overwhelming evidence suggests may make life considerably more challenging, or shorter, in the future..

It's true that what we're doing now with renewables is the equivalent of spitting into the wind, but you have to start somewhere. I'm sure the owners of tin and copper mines were pretty dismissive of that new-fangled "foreign" iron back in the day, but a technology superior in countless ways won out after a few hundred years-- and some really lopsided battles.

Don Hirschberg says

In any event this sentimental business about doing something now for our great(x)greatgrandchildren looks a bit foolish. I suggest that world population could ultimately flourish at maybe 2 billion. Two billion is not a number beyond comprehension. There were a bit fewer when I was born.

Until less than 1000 years ago there were never more than 0.3 billion of us on the planet. Until yesterday we were on the brink of extinction with no EPA to protect us.

Bob Percopo says

Bob Ashworth says

Chemical engineers are probably one of the few groups who can analyze data and have completed mass and energy balances around energy systems. An astrophysicist relayed to Lord Monckton that I couldn't use mass and energy balances around the earth when I showed CFC destruction of ozone raised the earth's temperature around 0.5 degree C.. He probably didn't know what a mass and energy balance was. Back in the nineties I believed Al Gore at first and developed an algae system to reduce CO2 emissions. I then found out there was a slight decrease in temperature based on satelite measurements over the ten years Gore cited. I never thought scientists would lie to support him but show me the money won the day.

Greg and Patrick: Tell me what data I analyzed incorrectly and why and based on that I will determine if either of you have the right to comment on the paper. All gases and particulate in the atmosphere cool the earth. I provided data for that which you too apparently did not read nor analyze for yourself.

I made a typo near the end of the paper. Sadly, much of the world runs on the tenant (tenet), "Show Me the Money!"

If you believe you are scientist and have a preconceived idea before you analyze any data, you are not a real scientist. Since I have worked with coal my whole life I needed to analyze the global warming concept in detail. I found it was bogus. I did not say it was bogus until I analyzed it in great depth.

Kindest regards,

Bob

Michael Keller says

How about we junk hysteria, apply the scientific method, including the free exchange of ideas as well as inquiry, and see where it leads.

As far as "experts" are concerned, if they are unable to provide a cogent, logical and transparent defense of what they propose, then maybe it is just a pile of crap.

John Hutchens says

Bob Ashworth says

On guy said I couldn't love children because of my position. I love little kids more than people who don't try to live in truth. It took me until I was in my fifties to realize why Jesus loves little kids so much. Simple answer, they are pure at heart like him.

I will fight with anyone about truth. Swami Vishnu Devananda said, God is Truth and Truth Alone Triumphs! Many global warmers are trying to hide now. I heard even Obama is not going to mention climate change during the Democratic convention.

Jefferson said, If men of Good will remain silent we will have tyranny, not liberty.

Kindest Regards,

Bob

Alan Roth says

Where paths diverge is that denialists say that since warming has always come first, we can't now say that we have global warming due to CO2 coming first. But the climate scientists counter that this time the CO2 is doing what the sun has done in the past, warming the earth which releases more CO2. But it appears that we have had global warming due to increased CO2 and that was 55 million years ago when it appears that massive volcanic activity released massive amounts of CO2 or methane or both. That was the trigger for warming and it was considered an extinction event causing a widespread loss of species.

I suggest that you get together with some atmospheric chemists and learn how greenhouse gases warm the earth. I think you have a big learning curve ahead of you. And try to shake off the tremendous biases that seem to be driving you. Your misguided claim against Al Gore is just one of many things you present that I find not just wrong but distasteful.

Greg Tinfow says

What then to do? It's absolutely possible to assign an "insurance premium" to the value of avoiding or reducing the impact of an uncertain future event. That "premium" is what we should be adding to those activities that increase the probability of an untoward outcome, just as smokers pay a higher premium for life insurance.

Thirty years ago when I was working in the Office of Policy Analysis at EPA, surrounded by Stanford and Harvard MBAs and engineers (those were the days), I worked on the computer modeling for what was probably the first economic study of policy options for delaying global warning, should the dire warnings in the NAS report of the late '70's prove correct. What we discovered was that it was already too late to forestall CO2 rise, particularly by unilateral policies, in large part due to the growing economies in India and China. Our conclusion was that we should be investing money in adaptation. Not surprisingly, everyone thought we were nuts. I'm not so sure the same people will agree a few years down the road.

By the way Bob, I've got an Ivy degree in chemistry and energy policy along with a Stanford degree in Mechanical Engineering (where we even studied thermodynamics!) I might just belong to that select group that can do a mass and energy balance...

One last comment: Although the Dutch have managed to live quite comfortably with large parts of their country below sea level, it's not a low-cost enterprise. Although wealthy countries may be able to afford tidal barriers and dikes, poorer countries are not quite so fortunate. If climate change ultimately displaces populations, whether through changes in rainfall or sea level rise, where are those people going to go? If you think a few hundred members of al-Qaeda are causing us problem, imagine a few hundred million unhappy people who blame the "weathly" countries for the loss of their homes and livelihoods. We might want to add that to the insurance policy.

Michael Keller says

Follow the money.

Further, global warming is a theory, not a fact.

Tossing about terms like "denialists" demonstrates a religious fanatic approach to discussions. What next? Burn the blaspheming heretics at the stake?

Jeffrey Sharer says

As the noted Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor, argued, “ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues.” The global scientific debate over whether the earth is warming or cooling has been over for quite some time … the earth is warming. As another respondent pointed out, the issue is not whether CO2 is or is not the culprit; instead, the issue is which adaptations society should utilize to address the results arising from a warming earth. Science can be utilized to create the adaptations for society to select, but society selects the adaptions and by consequence, who will benefit. One can seek to make the adaptation selection a scientific issue, but selecting the adaption for the results of global warming are a moral issue. As in this case, ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding some of the basis for the author’s arguments.

Jeffrey Sharer says

As the noted Canadian philosopher, Charles Taylor, argued, “ad hominem reasoning is essential to understanding certain moral issues.” The global scientific debate over whether the earth is warming or cooling has been over for quite some time … the earth is warming. As another respondent pointed out, the issue is not whether CO2 is or is not the culprit; instead, the issue is which adaptations society should utilize to address the results arising from a warming earth. Science can be utilized to create the adaptations for society to select, but society selects the adaptions and by consequence, who will benefit. One can seek to make the adaptation selection a scientific issue, but selecting the adaption for the results of global warming are a moral issue. As in this case, ad hominem reasoning is essential to understand some of the basis for the author’s arguments.

Don Hirschberg says

Here is some arithmetic using real numbers. From 1930 to 2012 population has gone from 2 billion to over 7 billion. 2X(1.0154)^82=7.00 billion. Let's project that to 2030 and use a growth rate of 1.4% per year instead of the 1.54% that was quite accurate for the last 82 years. 7.00x(1.014)^18=8.99 billion, or 1.99 billion more in just 18 years.

Today the population of South America is approaching 0.4 billion and Africa likely has over 1.0 billion (nobody really knows.) It seems it is safe to say that in 18 years world population will grow by more than the combined population of these two continents.

During 2011 more coal was burned than during any previous year. Many new coal-burners have been added since 2011. It is quite unlikely that any of these new plants will be shut down by 2030. None captures CO2.

In many places more more gas is being produced and burned. This trend is expected to grow substantially in coming years.

Generally water tables are falling. Some places are already in water crisis situations. One of the few ways left to increase food production is by increased irrigation. Food production is already inadequate and severe malnutrition and actual starvation is occurring in some countries. Yet converting food to fuel is being cheered, touted and subsidized.

Haven't we known for many decades that we long ago passed the point of no return for CO2 levels? CO2 emissions have inexorably kept increasing. I not only have seen no progress, I don't really see any prospect of progress.

bill payne says

We're into money recovery

http://www.prosefights.org/settlements/settlements.htm#bamford

Possible bombing of Iran's nuclear facilities?

Jerry Watson says

Did anyone notice that US first quarter 2012 CO2 emissions were the lowest in 20 years (EIA). Even under the 1992 Kyoto protocol level. EIA attributes it to mild weather cheap Nat Gas and expensive gasoline.

There is a world outside the US. The world’s number one CO2 emitter, China will continue to fuel its economy with cheap coal. Does anyone believe that a nation lacking SO2, NOX standards is going to limit CO2 production the feedstock of its economy. Coal is a massive store of solar energy produced over millions of years from atmospheric CO2. It came from the atmosphere and like it or not it is going back at a much faster clip. I doubt China will be surrendering it sovereignty anytime or consider lowering GHG emissions

I concede it is obviously and experiment with our own existence as to what will happen. I hope nothing happens as some predict. Regardless the CO2 freight train is unstoppable in our current world. I understand many wish for it to be different.

I am aware of some of the most dire predictions in particular in 2006 James Lovelock predicted that 6 billion or so will starve in coming years and the remaining 500 million more less will have retreated northward or southward towards the poles. Lovelock believed most of the world would quickly become a desert. Lovelock has recently done an about face saying he was wrong and is embracing Natural Gas fuel rather than a nuclear world as he before supported. It is probably a good thing we didn’t spend trillions based on his 2006 beliefs. I think he is a climate scientist.

I am also a supporter of a simple “at the source” carbon tax, whether it be mine mouth wellhead or oil unloading terminal. I am fine with the tax as long as it is US government revenue, rather than an attempt at a worldwide redistribution of wealth. If something needs discouraging, tax it and use the revenue for social programs or whatever. Even if CO2 fear proved to unfounded maybe I could keep just a little more of my pay if I was an efficient energy consumer.

As for Greenland, that last prediction I remember was 22 feet over two thousand years, which gives me a little time to sell my property in FL. Actual it is out near the ridge and is 128 ft over sea level so it unlikely to even be oceanfront then but the coast should be within a couple of miles it is only ten miles to closest point of Tampa Bay now.

Michael Keller says

I am getting really weary of poorly conceived solutions that are actually nothing more than income redistribution promulgated by subterfuge and out-right lies.

If you are actually worried about CO2 emissions, concentrate on better efficiency in the use and generation of energy. It is a vastly more effective approach.

Len Gould says

Final outcome is, if such nonsense as this paper etc are treated as serious climate research, and no acedemic standards are applied, then nothing which might ever harm large financial interests will ever get done. See USA.

Len Gould says

Len Gould says

You guys need to get a grip on reality and figure out that things are NOT drifting to the left, but the opposite. eg. just a few days ago a battalion of police shot dead over 50 striking mine workers (incidentally hoping for a bit more than $2.00 per day). The workers were then charged with the murders by the police. Given say a couple of republican (or even democratic) presidents in the US, it`s probably not long for there next.

Don Hirschberg says

Not 50 shot dead, and not by a battalion of police. I happen to be legally a veteran of WWII and an actual combat veteran of the Korean War.

In the 18 years since the end of apartheid South Africa has become the murder and rape (particularly of children) of the world. They are unable to even accurately record their crimes.

Joe Olson says

There is no PhD program in this phoney science that requires even a BS engineering level of Thermodynamics. How could 28 gigatons of a benign, three atom gas control the temperature of 359 trillion cubic miles of mostly molten rock and 310 million cubic miles of ocean ?

As a retired engineer and lifelong science student, i researched this FRAUD objectively as did my friend Bob Ashworth. Carbon Climate Forcing is all about FORCED Carbon Commodity Marketting. Read "Fractional Reserve Banking Begat Faux Reality" and "Becoming a TOTAL Earth Science Skeptic" to understand why you have been fooled by this false paradigm.

And for more on the companion lies of renewable energy, see "Green Prince of Darkness". For more on REAL renewable energy that is abiogenic oil, read "Fossil Fuel is Nuclear Waste". Find and share Truth, it is your duty as an Earthling.

Gerry Runte says

In all seriousness, I hope you all will join me in writing Energy Central requesting they explain why it is that they gave any credibility to this article.

Gerry Runte says

No smartphone? The "Mars icecaps are melting" notion, is discussed at http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-on-mars-basic.htm (you can select an elementary or high school level explanation).

Jerry Watson says

Or is your argument we are not paying taxes already? FYI consumption based taxes unlike income taxes can reduced through behavior changes.

On last thing the US energy sector is cost based not efficiency based. Coal plants are not more efficient, in fact they are usually the least efficient; however, historically coal was enough cheaper to more the compensate for difference. Combined Cycle plants have had heat rates two thirds that of coal plants for 20 plus years coal was simply much cheaper.

Gerry, ad hominem really??

Jerry Watson says

Michael Keller says

Once again, increase efficiency in the use and generation of energy and you end up lowering costs and noticeably decreasing emissions (including CO2): the best of both worlds.

Further, the US energy sector is, in fact, very heavily driven by better efficiency because a company can make more money that way. A review of coal power plant designs shows a clear trend in designing and building ever more efficient plants. From the really inefficient stoker units (circa 1940's), to pulverized coal units (1950's), to supercritical units (1960's) to ultra supercritical units (1990s) . Basically efficiency improvements occur from ever higher pressures and temperatures. Economies of scale (bigger plants) also are a major factor - again, you can make more money that way.

Efficiency improvements (and larger sizes) also drive the industry with respect to combustion turbines that fire at ever hotter temperatures. The early units were much less efficient than coal units. Nuclear units tend to be a something of a throw back with really low efficiencies, but the fuel is cheap.

As for Runte and Gould, appears logic and reason have fled their thinking.

Gerry Runte says

Just asked Energy Central for an explanation, not that it not be published. In fact, here's what I sent them:

I realize full well your desire to be balanced as to which Energy Pulse submissions get published, but this one about CO2 and global warming takes the cake. People like Ashworth are certainly welcome to their opinion, but why on earth did Energy Central lend its credibility to such obvious nonsense?

To his credit, Bob gave the citations to his opinion – I’m wondering if you even reviewed them. I suggest you Google his referenced “experts” Carl Brehmer or Jon Costella or David Evans and see what you find. Or take a look at the “assassination science” blog, or the CFACT and ICECAP websites. Why not just reblog articles from Climate Depot (actually belongs to CFACT), or maybe the Heartland Institute (who still argue that smoking is good for you, along with generating other paid “studies” claiming global warming is a fraud).

Normally an article like this would appear on one of the denial sites and become part of the endless churn. This article has become part of the churn as well, except it carries the banner of Energy Central and therefore has elevated credibility.

There are plenty of very worthwhile discussions that need to be had over carbon management policy and global warming: how big is the problem; is there anything that can realistically be done about it; can we afford the solutions; what, if anything, should be done in the near term, etc. But none of those discussions are being had in the US because we are still debating what is a given elsewhere. And we in this country ought to know better. If you look at what happened in the mid-80’s over sulfur dioxide policy you find an uncannily exact set of circumstances: the same old cast of characters on both sides of the argument; heavy opposition and lobbying from utilities and coal companies who generated arguments claiming junk science behind SO2 cap emissions damage; doomsday claims of wrecking the economy and skyrocketing utility bills from cap and trade; and even the Red Scare claims that this was creeping socialism. SO2 cap and trade is still going strong and even though it was implemented during the worst of the Reagan recession, neither the economy or utility bills were harmed in the process. The only significant difference then from now is that the right had no internet or Fox news or radio personalities to exploit voter ignorance.

What’s done is done. I would appreciate an explanation as to why you published it.

Thanks.

Michael Keller says

Michael Keller says

SO2 is a pollutant whose affects and the environment (and humans) can be straightforwardly determined by science.

CO2 is a natural occurring gas whose distant deleterious impacts on the climate (and man) are essentially not determinable by today's' science. Rather CO2 impacts are speculated because science is unable to unravel the complexities. In such a situation, free and open inquiry are vital to assess whether or not a serious problem is in the offing.

Don Hirschberg says

I have said often enough (maybe far too often for some readers) that I don't think we can accomplish either and that our civilization (such as it is) is doomed and that a die-off of billions cannot be avoided. Nobody wants to refute this position. Almost universal denial.

Has anyone put forward any scheme whereby the use of fossil fuels will be reduced, (Well sure, when they become too expensive to use – but that's not a scheme, it is a reaction.)

I happen to think we missed our last chance to reduce population back about 1960 or so. Many experts have told us we are already far beyond effective control of existing levels of CO2. Does anyone on this site challenge these thoughts?

I have often said over the years that it doesn't make much difference what the Danes do about energy. I said it is more important what the folks in Mexico City do than in Denmark, Sweden and Norway combined.

The great paradox is that the only program that has dealt with the world's number one problem was the Chinese one-child program. The only social program that deserves universal support has only engendered ridicule.

Len Gould says

Ah well. I suppose Mr. Keller won`t be the first person whose ``brilliance`` is only apparent to themselves. Just look at Mr. Ashworth LOL.

Gerry Runte says

Energy Central is free to determine its own editorial policy and I am free to question it.

Bob Webster says

The degree of historic climate perspective appears to be inversely proportional to the amount of ad hominem smarm. This is typical of those who are angry because they cannot make a rational counter-argument.

I suggest critics first learn about ice eras, ice epochs, ice ages/interglacials and pay particular attention to the nature of interglacials and their temperature profiles. Then do the same for atmospheric CO2. All this is in the geologic record.

If you don't understand where you've been, you cannot possibly appreciate where you are.

There is absolutely nothing unusual from an historic climate perspective about any of the rather small climate variation of the past several hundred years. Attempts to pin such changes on human emissions of CO2 are laughable if not pathetic.

Marcel Leroux, the late French climatologist (doubly), published an outstanding text, "Global Warming, Myth or Reality" (2005, Praxis Publishing, UK), in which he concluded his examination of climate change with: "The Greenhouse Effect is not the cause of climate change." And, "The possible causes, then, of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale, with climatic consequences slowed by the inertial effect of glacial accumulations; solar activity, thought by some to be responsible for half of the 0.6°C rise in temperature, and by others to be responsible for all of it, which situation certainly calls for further analysis; volcanism and its associated aerosols (and especially sulphates), whose (short-term) effects are indubitable; and, far at the rear, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapour, the extent of its influence being unknown."

I recommend Leroux's book to those who want to understand how he arrived at these conclusions.

Michael Keller says

Deploying the methods used successfully to reduce SO2 to reduce CO2 is nonsensical as there is no hope of success. Hence, it is a waste of money.

Further, deploying renewable energy to "solve" global warming is just a very poor solution. Deploying renewable energy to save money makes sense (as the cost of the technologies comes down).

Michael Keller says

Well, actually yes: www.hybridpwr.com

Bob Ashworth says

Gentlemen: I am a scientist that only deals in truth. I presented the data and not one of you took umbrage with it except for one guy who didn't believe the ice core data I presented that can be found on the NOAA website. Gore lied about CO2 coming first then warming following even though the ice core data by NOAA who has supported the climate change agenda refutes that. Did you know that Gore and David Blood (formerly of Goldman Sachs) formed GIM LLP (promotes alternative energy sources) in the UK in 2004 and by 2008 stopped accepting investments when the investments rose to some $5 billion. In my opinion he conned the investment community like he did many of you. I guess his time in the seminary was wasted. Thanks to others like me, the carbon tax agenda was defeated at least for the near future so you will be paying less for energy.

Regarding CO2, using 385 ppmv as the base if it would ever reach 835 ppmv the growth rate would increase by 450%. This was shown in actual greenhouse plant growth demonstration. What Cretu says about CO2 reaching a maximum when plants quit growing is illigoical. I have seen no data that shows that. Maybe another bogus IPCC model. They don't rely on real data. From the small town political approach that most of you use which is we can't prove him wrong but we sure can call him names, it is apparent that these comments follow political agendas. A scientist would review the work presented and comment on that. I guess you could say I am doing the same thing by calling Gore a con artist but I reviewed the data he presented and that is what it clearly looks like to me. I admit he was right about ozone destruction by CFCs causing warming (I analyzed that too) but CO2 causing warming is a complete farce for trying to make money off it.

Pierre Latour says

The proper way to determine phase lag or lead between two sinusoids, CO2 and T, is to integrate the difference squared. Call this ISE at actual time = 0. Then increment the CO2 sinusoid forward in time, tf, and determine the corresponding ISE(tf). Repeat with increments backward in time, tb and determine ISE(tb).

Now view the function ISE(t) and you will see in this case it increases from tf = tb = 0 forward as the two sinusoids get more out of phase and decreases to almost zero backward to about 1000 years, when the sinusoids coincide in phase quite nicely, then ISE(t) increases again as CO2 leads T. The minimum ISE occurs at some lag time, tl, by definition. Since tl <0 it is called a lag. Otherwise it would be a lead.

The Environmental Engineering Department of University of St Thomas, Houston, did this in 2007 for 400,000 years of T and CO2 data reported by Al Gore, “Inconvenient Truth” and found tl = about 800 years. I verified it visually from a NatGeo poster. Further, they analyzed time lag of CO2 absorption-desorption of ocean circulation and found it is 700-1000 years.

So it is reasonable to conclude CO2 solubility in water vs. T causes atmospheric CO2 concentration to follow, lag, atmospheric temperature changes, which are driven by solar intensity changes. Temperature swings cause CO2 swings, CO2 does not cause temperature swings.

Analyzing natural data can only show correlation. To prove causation requires the underlying scientific mechanism. This is a basic flaw in the meteorology of GHG theory and AGW. The theory is not reasonable. Bob Ashworth’s article is reasonable.

Pierre R Latour, PhD, PE, Chemical Systems Engineer

Len Gould says

It`s also understandable that all these engineering types, trained in school to always trust others and never think originally (buildings and bridges would be failing constantly if originality were encouraged among engineers) are simply unsuited by temperment and training to evaluate genuine science, where theory backed by available data must supercede dogma. Engineering training is probably the worst basis for a scientist. Ashworth`s claims to being a scientist are simply hilarious as he clearly wouldn`t recognize a scientific hypothesis with a high probability of truth if a real scientist spoke it to him.

And for all you engineers crying foul because someone gets heated about objecting to your (constantly repeated again and again and again....) errors, that just proves you have no experience of real science, where discussions at symposia can become so heated as to come to blows and wrestling matches. That`s real science, and if you can`t handle it then get the heck off the field and quit wasting everyone`s time.

Len Gould says

The fact that we are undeniably, by our activities, taking earth`s GHG levels up to a level higher than they have been since the current glaciation cycles started should have everyone including you, seriously concerned about what may happen as a result, given the obvious corelation in Antartic and Greenland ice core temperature and CO2 and methane histories.

Bob Ashworth says

Len, I don't know what your background is but it can't be in a scientific field; political science doesn't count. When you plot data versus time you look at the times and see what the data shows for those times. Clearly a temperature rise precedes the CO2 rise. No rocket science required here. Have you ever read a graph before???

If the CO2 increases, the earth will cool very slightly, never warm. Being worried about an ice age would be better than worrying about a warming period but CO2 in the ppmv range it is in now and for the future has such a slight cooling effect man could never measure it.

Does someone pay you for the senseless non-scientific statements you make here. You operate like the greenies. They say windmills, solar and hydroelectric are green energy sources when it is just the opposite, there is nothing green about them. The only green energy on this planet are fossil fuels and biomass. The IPCC operates the same way, all gases cool the earth; they say their made-up greenhouse gases warm the earth. For you and these two crowds right is wrong and wrong is right. I designed a fluid bed coal combustor to heat a greenhouse and Len it worked as designed - imagine that from one who knows nothing about science.

Michael Keller says

Bob Webster says

Len: "There is absolutely nothing unusual from an historic climate perspective about any of the rather small climate variations of the past several hundred years." -- Bob Webster proposes that present CO2 levels cannot possibly have any effect in future because they haven`t had much effect yet. An obviously empty argument. ... end of Len.

To note that natural climate variability is consistent with that which has been observed over the past several hundred years does not address the causation.

The point lost on Len is that the desperate attempt to find a human causation for what for all appearances is perfectly natural climate variability is irrational.

Look at the climate variability of the past 120 years and you will see similar patterns of cyclic warming and cooling. Why look to assign a new cause for what, by any reasonable standard, has all the appearance of natural climate variability?

For those who worship at the altar of greenhouse gases, water vapor is your god, as it is the overwhelming atmospheric greenhouse gas in terms of its absorption/reradiation capacity. Annual human emissions of CO2 are a blip compared to the natural emissions and CO2 is a blip compared to water vapor.

If that isn't enough to create reasonable doubt, then pay attention to two of the key requirements of the human-emissions-of-CO2-are-warming-the-planet-theory:

1. Tropical mid troposphere warming signature from human-induced warming.

2. Polar regions will warm before lower latitude regions (lower atmospheric water vapor content emphasizes CO2 content is the rationale).

Problem is, observations (1) fail to detect any warming signature as predicted, and, (2) polar regions are NOT warming as predicted (indeed, the Antarctic continues its 5-6 decade cooling trend).

When observations do not match theory, you don't attack the observers. You junk the theory. It's all part of the Scientific Method.

Pierre Latour says

dennis baker says

Len Gould says

Len Gould says

Len Gould says

Pierre Latour says

I conclude you don't care about Earth's environment and flora. I do not find that amusing.

You have my permssion to exhale all the CO2 you like. It is good for you and Earth.

After you become proficient with spellcheckers, practice Copy/Paste by Microsoft.

Len Gould says

Gary Uhlig says

I am neither a scientist nor an engineer, but I am highly concerned about the future of our nation's ability to sustain itself economically as we try to make changes that will improve our (and possibly the world's) quality of life. I've had the following questions on my mind since 1972, when I read an excerpt from an article in the Toronto Globe and Mail (if I remember correctly) re: hydrogen as the fuel of the future. I've lost track of the article, having moved several times since then. Here are my questions:

1) What would be the necessary increase in domestic (or global) electricity production in order to generate enough electricity to produce hydrogen from seawater, in order to use hydrogen as our only (or primary) motor fuel, either as a stand-alone system, or for use in plug-in hybrid vehicles? I remember the 1972 article suggested chemical chatylists that would make hydrogen a safe alternative to gasoline or diesel.

2) Is this increase possible using fossil-fuel-fired power plants, in conjunction with renewable sources, like wind and solar?

3) Why doesn't this article address problems of national security, as well as CO2 emmissions (less oil = less CO2 and CO, right?). T.Boone Pickens's proposal for massive windfarms in the U.S. heartland was designed to drastically reduce our $700 bln annual hemmoragh to politically untabel regions, where we are constantly at war, protecting our right to divest ourselves of that money; why shouldn't we take his ideas seriously?

4) Why can't our concerns about emissions, fuel consumption and nation defense be handled on a national level? After all that is how we built the Hoover and Grand Coulee dams, as well as the Panama Canal?

I realize that my comment deviates from the issues addressed in Bob Atworth's article, but I think that if we are trying to deal with CO2 and climate change, we must look at as many of the broader issues as possible. I also think that, if the U.S. leads, others will follow, especially as technology improves and costs decrease.

Don Hirschberg says

Water is at the bottom of the energy hill. To make hydrogen from water takes much more energy than you can get back from converting it back into water – no matter how you do it. If you use significant percentage of fossil fuels to make the electricity to electrolyze the water you will make far more CO2 than if you used the fossil fuels directly. Hydrogen is considered an energy sink, not an energy source – and always will be.

Let's take a very crude look at the global electricity situation. Very crude. There are over 7 billion of us. Those in the European Union, Japan, and the English-speaking countries , say a billion of us have adequate electrity. Let's say half of the remaining 6 billion have electricity. That leaves about 3 billion with little or no electric service. If that's not bad enough we add about 0.1 billion to the population per year. And as places such as Sub Saharan Africa develop their average longevity will go up from maybe 50 years today to much longer.

Right now much of the world is maxed out on food production and fresh water supply. I see little prospect that this situation can improve.

It would not seem possible to electrolyze enough water for massive hydrogen production until far more people have electricity service. Those without electricity service are poor – and have been poor for over a hundred years or they would have built generating stations generations ago. Where would the resources and fuels come from for such a massive building program?

For decades now there have been a zillion projects to reduce CO2 emissions. What have been the results? Well, every year more CO2. Lots more. Coal makes more CO2 per KWH than other fuels and more coal was burned in 2011 than in any year in history. Many new coal burners are under construction today.

If we can't reduce population – or even stop the growth- attempts to solve our other problems are fatuous.

Len Gould says

Malcolm Rawlingson says

Just a few short years ago another bunch of climate "scientists" (they are computer modelers NOT scientists for the most part) were telling the world that we were about to enter a new ice age.

So we cannot even decide whether the earth is getting warmer or cooler. So much for predictions.

And I agree with Don - ridiculous nonsense trying to reduce CO2 emissions when the world population will probably starve itself to extinction anyway.

Malcolm Rawlingson says

And who would provide the funds to build such facilities in countries that cannot even afford to build ANY sort of power station let alone a high tech one.

And what genius of politics is going to tell sub Saharan Africa not to build coal plants when we cannot even get ourselves off the stuff.

I don't see the political will to do even the basics to get us off the trajectory we are on. In Canada 10 to 15 years to build a nuclear plant with just one on the drawing board. And we need to build one a week. Forget it - too little and far too late.

Malcolm

Malcolm Rawlingson says

I think Don has provided a good explanation of the problems with the so called hydrogen economy. Simply put you need to put more energy in than you get out therefore a bit of a waste of time. It is also not easy to transport bulk hydrogen by pipeline. At the pressures required it will leak out of conventional pipeline systems. Also since we cannot even build a simple oil pipeline into the US what makes you think it would be possible to lay tens of thousands of miles of hydrogen pipelines all over the US. Much easier to move methane about and it is easier to liquefy it than hydrogen plus that infrastructure is already built.

The more sensible fuel to replace oil as our transportation fuel is methane (natural gas is mostly methane). That technology already exists and requires no development. Most current vehicles run on natural gas perfectly well with some minor timing adjustments but as you can see not many vehicles on the road that run on it. You have to wonder why that is and ask yourself why T-Boone Pickens has not promoted that - although I hear that he has moved off the wind mantra and is now extolling the virtues of natural gas. I suspect he smells dollars there. If you think that guy has the needs of the American people at heart give your head a shake. He is concerned about finding ways to make more money and if he can get it from the taxpayer by subsidized wind farms or from promoting nat gas he will do it whether it makes sense or not.

As far as National Security of the United States is concerned, Canada has a 600,000 barrel a day oil pipeline ready to go to help you get off oil from Venezuela and the Middle East to provide the US with better national security and less reliance on oil from hostile countries. I can only presume Mr Obama thinks National Energy security is not such a big problem since he did not allow it. The lie of an excuse was going over the water aquifer in Nebraska - but of course failing completely to mention that thousands of miles of US pipeline already run over water aquifers and apparently those are NOT a problem. The word hypocrisy comes to my mind.

I do agree with your sentiments about the great achievements of the past but suffice it to say that today it would be impossible to build the Hoover Dam or the Panama Canal. The environmentalists would be all over that and hold it up in piles of litigation for years and years until the backers eventually pulled out. That is the modern way - at least in North America.

The Chinese are able to forge ahead with their plans for energy independence because they do not have to deal with this. They just arrest the naysayers or they disappear. But big projects like the ones you mention in your post are unlikely without a complete change in the politics of the USA. You are sadly - not the same country that built the Hoover Dam or the Golden Gates Bridge or the interstate highway system.... not by a long way. While Canada is not exactly endowed with brilliant far sighted politicians I really pity you folks in the US at having to choose between a complete idiot and a complete idiot with money. No wonder only half of you do not bother to even vote.

The closest I have seen to "vision" in the US is the vision to create a bigger and better attack ad for the nitwits to lap up from their flat panel, made in China TV sets paid for with money borrowed from China. The Chinese have gotta love that irony. No you are not the same country that built the Hoover Dam and I am very very saddened by that.

And one last comment about wind mills in the mid-west. Sure it looks good on paper but Mr Pickens realized that in order to get all the power out someone (not the great and glorious TBP) would need to build billions and billions of dollars worth of high voltage power lines to move the electricity from where the population is not (the mid-west) to where the population IS (the cities of the Eastern and Western seaboards. No-one would come up with the cash to do that and with no power lines the windmills would be pretty useless - which they are anyway when the wind doesn't blow.

As you can see from the Keystone pipeline fiasco where there is difficulty building an oil pipeline underground where no-one even sees it - try building a few 500,000 volt power lines across Americas backyard. You'd be in court for the next 50 years. TBP could not wait that long to make money so it was quietly shelved....because it is a stupid idea.

Malcolm

Malcolm Rawlingson says

"Has anyone put forward any scheme whereby the use of fossil fuels will be reduced, (Well sure, when they become too expensive to use – but that's not a scheme, it is a reaction.)" Well, actually yes: www.hybridpwr.com"

The answer depends on which fossil fuel you are talking about. For coal the bulk of the consumption is the burning of it to make electricity. The solution to that is nuclear generated electricity which can readily replace all coal burning power plants. The fuel will last for centuries even on just a once through Uranium cycle.

For oil it is more difficult. Oil is mostly used as transportation fuel and chemical feedstock not electricity generation so nuclear is not a ready solution to that. As oil becomes more difficult to extract from the earth's crust the price will go up since deep sea drilling (for example) is much more expensive than on shore drilling. The price will be higher simply because the extraction costs are higher. However I see oil being replaced as a transport fuel by natural gas which (thanks to fracking) is very plentiful and very cheap and likely to remain so for a long time. That will allow time for the necessary battery developments to occur to enable electrically driven vehicles. However battery developments may well be a long way off so it will be natural gas for a long time.

For aircraft fuels - a much more difficult problem and I do not see any ready substitute for oil in that application. But of course we generalize oil as being one product when in fact the term "oil" represents hundreds of different products of differing grades and characteristics.

Similarly the term "fossil fuels" is a great variety of hydrocarbons so generalizing about reducing all fossil fuels really implies reducing consumption of the major ones like coal and oil. Don't see that happening any time soon. Malcolm

Don Hirschberg says

Len Gould says

Len Gould says

Don Hirschberg says

That means that ferns and primitive conifers knew how to make make hydrocarbons out of CO2 using solar energy. We don't. We are getting this solar energy back everyday in the form of electricity. We burn up many years of this stored solar energy every day. It wasn't very efficient.

When should we say man arrived? Surely not more than 1 million years ago. To a geologist 1 million years is not like yesterday it is more like earlier today. A Neanderthal circa 100,000 years ago and dressed in clothes and rehearsed might pass as a man. But people such as we likely didn't exist until about 40,000 years ago. Minutes or seconds ago to a geologist. So if we have a die-off who should find this outlandish?

Our efforts should be to reduce population before catastrophic die-off.

Ferdinand E. Banks says

Jim Beyer says

Concerning making hydrogen by electrolyzing water. Don is correct in that it is a huge energy hill to climb to break the hydrogen away from the oxygen atom. What you get, however, is a fuel which is (barely) storable from electricity, which is not storable at all.

The problem with hydrogen (and the hydrogen economy) is that if you are really going to scale that energy hill in creating hydrogen, then you might as well go a bit FURTHER and make methane (CH4) with the hydrogen and some carbon dioxide (plenty of that around) via the Sabatier reaction:

4H2 + CO2 -> CH4 + 2H2O

One thing notable is that you get half your water back, so your electricity to fuel scheme ends up using half the water. Also, since NG is mainly methane, you have a fuel for which an entire infrastructure is already in place. Methane is also much easier to store and 3X denser energetically per volume compared with hydrogen.

The hydrogen economy people are not thinking the problem through well enough, IMHO.

Don Hirschberg says

4 pound mols (8 pounds) of hydrogen in: About 490,000 BTU of fuel IN. 1 pound mol (16 pounds) of methane out: About 382,000 BTU of fuel value OUT

That's quite a drop in fuel value without getting a lick of work out of it. Perhaps on a space station getting some water back would be a big plus but down here water isn't so rare. Using the methane will make the same CO2 we started with.

Once having expended the energy to make hydrogen it is a shame not to use it efficiently in a fuel cell

I could be missing something but I don't see an application as to energy or CO2 reduction.

Jim Beyer says

you are right and you are wrong. Your numbers are right theoretically. Practically, electrolyzing water isn't hugely efficient, so the needed energy input is even worse. Sabatier reactors, are close to 100% efficient, but as you indicate, some energy is lost as heat. (Perhaps one could use that for something, I don't know.)

The issue is storage costs. How long are you going to store this fuel before you use it? And you ARE storing it, because if you could use it right away, you might as well just use the electricity itself, right? Turns out the storage costs for hydrogen are pretty bad -- if you need to storage the energy for more than about 5-6 days, you might as well go with methane. Less than that, and hydrogen makes sense. Problem is, on the shorter time frame of storage, hydrogen starts butting up against other technologies like batteries.

Don Hirschberg says

A reactor efficiency of nearly 100% means the reaction actually goes like the chemical reaction is written – i.e. you do get 1 methane molecule for each CO2 molecule, etc. My calculations were not theoretical. When you burn a pound of methane you get approx 23,000 BTUs whether you want them or not.

If the competition is batteries that means rubber bands are not far off the pace.

Len Gould says

Jim Beyer says

OTOH, we are running out of fossil fuels, at least at some point.

Steven Syracuse says

Re your remark: p.s. Energy Central, can't you do better than this?

Bravo!!

aldrichdevon vigorda says

aldrichdevon vigorda says